Australia buys M1A1s
-
BC-AS-GEN--Australia-Military Tanks Australia to buy 59 used tanks
from the United States Eds: RECAPS; UPDATES throughout with
details, quotes; CORRECTS name of tanks from Leopard to Abrams
throughout By EMMA TINKLER= Associated Press Writer=
CANBERRA, Australia (AP) Â… Australia will buy 59 used tanks
from the United States as it moves to further align its military
with its ally and make the army �more lethal,‘ Defense Minister
Robert Hill said Wednesday.
The M1A1 Abrams tanks will replace an aging fleet of 76 German
Leopard 1 tanks, and will cost 550 million Australian dollars
(US$417 million), Hill said. The army will start using them in
2007.
�The Abrams tanks are significantly more capable than the
current tank and will contribute to the army becoming more lethal
in future close combat,‘ Hill told reporters in Canberra.
�The government made the decision that it would seek a capable
and credible tank available for deployment in the region and in
coalitions further afield.‘
Army Chief Lt. Gen. Peter Leahy said the refurbished tanks will
also provide better protection for Australian soldiers as they can
withstand blasts from shoulder-fired missiles.
�Even on peacekeeping missions, the proliferation of hand-held,
anti-armor weapons means that it's a very lethal environment,‘
Leahy said. �We believe that if we're going to put our people in
harm's way, we want to make sure they have the best equipment.‘
The Abrams tanks spearheaded the U.S. military's invasion of
Iraq last year, in which some 2,000 Australian troops
participated.
The tanks are equipped with a cannon and three machine guns.
They can hit speeds up to 66 kilometers per hour (41 mph), with a
cruising range of up to 480 kilometers (300 miles) carrying four
crew and ammunition, Australian officials say.
The tanks are �much harder to hit ... and when we hit, we'll
hit a whole lot harder,‘ Leahy said.
As part of the package, the United States will also provide
extra refueling and transport support vehicles, training
simulators and logistics support, Hill said. The tanks will be
stationed in the northern port city of Darwin.
The deal further strengthens military ties between the United
States and Australia. It follows a recent announcement that
Australia will use the U.S. Navy's Aegis combat system technology
when building three new destroyers.
Australia has also committed millions of dollars to the U.S.
program to build the next-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
jets and is expected to buy some jets.
The Australian government is overhauling its defense forces,
spending 50 billion Australian dollars (US$38 billion) over the
next 10 years to upgrade technology and replace old equipment,
including tanks and fighter jets.
AP-TK-10-03-04 0147GMT -
dey need it for their wide open spaces. but ony 59 tanks for the whole country? maint will cost a bomb.Originally posted by ChineseJunk:BC-AS-GEN--Australia-Military Tanks Australia to buy 59 used tanks
from the United States Eds: RECAPS; UPDATES throughout with
details, quotes; CORRECTS name of tanks from Leopard to Abrams
throughout By EMMA TINKLER= Associated Press Writer=
CANBERRA, Australia (AP) Â… Australia will buy 59 used tanks
from the United States as it moves to further align its military
with its ally and make the army ?more lethal,‘ Defense Minister
Robert Hill said Wednesday.
The M1A1 Abrams tanks will replace an aging fleet of 76 German
Leopard 1 tanks, and will cost 550 million Australian dollars
(US$417 million), Hill said. The army will start using them in
2007.
?The Abrams tanks are significantly more capable than the
current tank and will contribute to the army becoming more lethal
in future close combat,‘ Hill told reporters in Canberra.
?The government made the decision that it would seek a capable
and credible tank available for deployment in the region and in
coalitions further afield.‘
Army Chief Lt. Gen. Peter Leahy said the refurbished tanks will
also provide better protection for Australian soldiers as they can
withstand blasts from shoulder-fired missiles.
?Even on peacekeeping missions, the proliferation of hand-held,
anti-armor weapons means that it's a very lethal environment,‘
Leahy said. ?We believe that if we're going to put our people in
harm's way, we want to make sure they have the best equipment.‘
The Abrams tanks spearheaded the U.S. military's invasion of
Iraq last year, in which some 2,000 Australian troops
participated.
The tanks are equipped with a cannon and three machine guns.
They can hit speeds up to 66 kilometers per hour (41 mph), with a
cruising range of up to 480 kilometers (300 miles) carrying four
crew and ammunition, Australian officials say.
The tanks are ?much harder to hit ... and when we hit, we'll
hit a whole lot harder,‘ Leahy said.
As part of the package, the United States will also provide
extra refueling and transport support vehicles, training
simulators and logistics support, Hill said. The tanks will be
stationed in the northern port city of Darwin.
The deal further strengthens military ties between the United
States and Australia. It follows a recent announcement that
Australia will use the U.S. Navy's Aegis combat system technology
when building three new destroyers.
Australia has also committed millions of dollars to the U.S.
program to build the next-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
jets and is expected to buy some jets.
The Australian government is overhauling its defense forces,
spending 50 billion Australian dollars (US$38 billion) over the
next 10 years to upgrade technology and replace old equipment,
including tanks and fighter jets.
AP-TK-10-03-04 0147GMT -
Aussie do not really need a large land based army. It's mainly meant for protecting aussie, not for power projection. Their mentality from my understanding is based on "Fortress Austrilia" concept.Originally posted by paulho:dey need it for their wide open spaces. but ony 59 tanks for the whole country? maint will cost a bomb.
They do not have much in massive sealift and airlift abilities. I recall they had to rent a catamaran to transport their troops over to East Timor.
They have a radar system called JORN (Jindalee Operational Radar Network), with unclassified operational range of around 3000km++. Strike forces of ships, aircrafts will be detected long before hand.
http://defence-data.com/features/fpage37.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1084299/posts -
They only have the same numbers of leopard 1 so they dom't really believe in having heavy tanks.
Noticed that they stationed them in Darwin which is facing indonesia.... if they stationed it in Victoria and NSW it would have been difficult to transport them north if there are tensions.... -
Heavy tanks are not really suitable in Northern and middle Australia, thus you will see ADF only wanted a limited number. 550 million AUD for 59 upgrade second hand M1A1 is not that expensive considering they will be getting the entire package from a re-engine for the gas turbine to a diseal one, some tropicalisation as well as other yet to disclosed items (I hope they get the CCITV as well).
Snippets from another source also cited:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/09/1078594364315.html
Defence sources said Australia had bought a "complete capability" rather than just a tank.
The US has agreed to provide continuing maintenance for the tanks, training and simulators, spare parts, support vehicles such as transport trucks and accessories such as radios.
Unlike the US version, the Australian tanks will not use depleted uranium in its armour.
The tanks' gas turbine engines will also be compatible with diesel and helicopter fuel used by the Australian Defence Force, rather than the aviation fuel used by the US version. -
tats cheap
-
I wonder what other reasons are there that they chose the M1A1 rather than the leopard 2.
-
i waiting for the day i see a merkava in LCK training area...
that'll be cool... -
I wish so too, but their width and length will be a slight problem. And the ground there will sink under all that weight.Originally posted by CX:i waiting for the day i see a merkava in LCK training area...
that'll be cool... -
Low mileage for 2nd hand vehicles.Originally posted by eurofighter:I wonder what other reasons are there that they chose the M1A1 rather than the leopard 2. 
-
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2004/s1062588.htm
Defence spends up big on tanks
Wednesday, 10 March , 2004 08:10:00
Reporter: Nick Grimm
TONY EASTLEY: At just under ten million dollars each, Australia is about to get some new tanks. And at just under ten million each they're not cheap. But the M1A1 ABRAMS tanks are big and far more powerful than the weapons Australia currently has. The ABRAMS tanks were used widely in the invasion of Iraq last year.
But despite the tanks' undisputed superiority in that theatre of war, defence experts here in Australia are worried that the Federal Government could get more bang for its defence buck by spending the money elsewhere.
Nick Grimm reports.
NICK GRIMM: They might have only been facing the dilapidated military of Saddam Hussein, but when columns of American M1-AI Abrams tanks raced across the deserts of Iraq on their way to Baghdad last year they cast a powerful image around the world of US military might.
According to Aldo Borgu, from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, it was a sight that stopped Australian defence planners in their tracks, and persuaded them that Australia needed that kind of war machine.
ALDO BORGU: I'd be very surprised if that wasn't the case and certainly, you know, there really doesn't seem to be any other reason other than that.
NICK GRIMM: The Abrams tanks Australia is to buy are second-hand built eleven years ago but are being re-manufactured with their odometers set back to zero. In theory they should be as good as new.
Aldo Borgu.
ALDO BORGU: Certainly, I mean, there's no doubt that we need tanks. I mean, the fact is that basically, I think, in modern warfare demonstrated that infantry need the protection of tanks.
My question is what sort of relative priority of actually buying the tanks now, when they weren't so much of a priority a few years ago, but also, you know, what are we actually sacrificing in cutting in our infantry battalions to actually fund those tanks?
NICK GRIMM: Australia is to purchase 59 of the tanks to replace the army's 30-year-old fleet of German-built Leopard tanks, which now lack the heavy armour required to protect soldiers against modern armour-piercing weapons.
But some experts argue the Abrams, which weigh in at 67 tonnes, are heavy gas guzzlers. On the plus side, though, they're fast, with a top spend of around 70 kilometres an hour, but it has been said that many of the Abrams tanks had their progress stalled during the race to Baghdad when they got too far ahead of supply lines and ran out of fuel.
So there has been debate about whether Australia would be better buying lighter, more fuel-efficient tanks.
Yet Aldo Borgu is more concerned about whether the defence budget could be more effectively spent elsewhere.
ALDO BORGU: Certainly I think the major issue is what are we actually going to be using these tanks for? Now obviously the Government's made its decision based on increased interoperability with the United States, but the concern that I'd have is the primary reason we're getting these tanks is that we're going to be able to more participate in operations like Iraq and Korea outside of our region, and I just don't think that's the real priority we should be looking at.
NICK GRIMM: In what way would it close down the Australian military's options?
ALDO BORGU: Well, I think you've got to look at how we're actually funding the acquisition of the tanks. The fact is they weren't in the government's defence plan previously, so something had to give, and the indications are that projects to increase the combat capabilities of our infantry battalions have been cut for some 40 per cent to fund this purchase.
Now, what that means is the infantry aren't going to have a lot of heavy weapons that they were going to have before, so it makes it more likely that you're going to have to use the tanks to support the infantry.
TONY EASTLEY: Aldo Borgu is from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. He was speaking there with Nick Grimm.
This is a transcript from AM. The program is broadcast around Australia at 08:00 on ABC Local Radio -
Merkava 1 is pretty light......around 8-10 tons lighter i believe then the Merkava 2 onwards...Originally posted by ditzy:I wish so too, but their width and length will be a slight problem. And the ground there will sink under all that weight. -
They say armor used on Merkava4 is clobham like those on M1A1/A2, they said the mossad pilfered a sample of it from the lazy british, analysed and then copied it.Originally posted by |-|05|:Merkava 1 is pretty light......around 8-10 tons lighter i believe then the Merkava 2 onwards...
is it true? -
does anyone still think that the israelis are not capable of such things?Originally posted by paulho:They say armor used on Merkava4 is clobham like those on M1A1/A2, they said the mossad pilfered a sample of it from the lazy british, analysed and then copied it.
is it true?
wouldn't surprise me if they did... then the rest of the world gets to buy from them, what the americans and the brits won't sell... remember the Lavi? -
I do wonder, even after the official explanation for an Abram purchase, the true reason behind getting them rather than upgrading the Leo1 with applique armour and upgun the main gun to 120mm.
Are they acquired as an insurance against the regional interests in or acquisition of moden MBTs like the PLA Type-90/96/98, Polish PT91, etc.
I do understand that this latest development has really no baring on SAF, but do you guys think we will soon see some development or news release regarding to some locally design tanks by DSTA/ST? -
We dun even want to say we got MBT even after Thailand bought some........what makes u think we will say now?Oh and the thai stingrays or something liddat re nice!Originally posted by Joe Black:I do wonder, even after the official explanation for an Abram purchase, the true reason behind getting them rather than upgrading the Leo1 with applique armour and upgun the main gun to 120mm.
Are they acquired as an insurance against the regional interests in or acquisition of moden MBTs like the PLA Type-90/96/98, Polish PT91, etc.
I do understand that this latest development has really no baring on SAF, but do you guys think we will soon see some development or news release regarding to some locally design tanks by DSTA/ST? -
Mebbe howard wants to be the big brudder in this region, how to be big brudder when your neighbours are sporting new toys like PT91 etc ...Originally posted by Joe Black:I do wonder, even after the official explanation for an Abram purchase, the true reason behind getting them rather than upgrading the Leo1 with applique armour and upgun the main gun to 120mm.
Are they acquired as an insurance against the regional interests in or acquisition of moden MBTs like the PLA Type-90/96/98, Polish PT91, etc.
but seriously I think more likely it is for overseas deployment as we see the aussies taking more & more roles in peace keeping operations in the future, deploying a brigade of troops with not much else cannot do many things other than doing guard duty. -
After they got them they have to figure how to transport them to do the peacekeeping?
I think in some ways, Singapore and Australia are competing to be relevant to the Pentagon in this region.
Singapore are saying anything SEA tropical - consult us first. We can advise on best way to deploy armour in this terrain etc.
ADF is maintaining their relevance too in their own ways - by integrating as much as possible to the US arsenal? So in future they will be buying more and more US weapons. Eg the missile shield thingy....
They also think their F111s should do more training with the USAF in Arizona like our Vipers doing low level strike missions....... -
G'day
At current strength, the RAN has sufficient lift capability to move a quite substantial force. Here are the figs:
18 MBT's, 40 M113's/ASLAV's and 315 soldiers on HMAS Tobruk
800 soldiers + associated Vehicles between HMA ships Kanimbla and Manoora (LPA's L51 and L52, Manoora and Kanimbla can also operate as hospital and command ships)
18 MBT's or 138 1/4 ton trucks or 78 M113's/ASLAV's or unspecified no of troops between HMA ships Balikpapan(L126), Betano(L133), Brunei(L127), Labuan(L128 ), Tarakan(L129), Wewak(L130)
So that comes to:
Up to 36 MBT's
Up to 118 M113's/ASLAV's
Around 1415 soldiers (Approx, including an average of 50 soldiers per LCH)
All the 110's, unimogs, macks and engineering vehicles required.
I think that makes a pretty imposing peacekeeping force, we could also hire civilian vessels like we did during the INTERFET period (HMAS Jervis Bay)
When the RAN gets the two new 20000 ton Amphib ships i think that the lift capability wont be a problem anymore.
Hope this gave a little bit of insight into the RAN's amphib lift capability.
Just out of interest, what's the status of the RSN's amphib lift capability, and also was it the RSN that was getting the new frigates based on the French Lafayette class? -
G'day back to ya SSGT Kingston, thanks for the insight into the sealift capabilities of the RAN. I paid a visit to Garden Island in 2001 when visiting the USS Kitty Hawk, and saw a couple of RAN ships there. The facilities there are impressive, for a urban naval base!
yes it is the RSN who has acquired 4 stealthy frigates in the shape of the Formidable class. The bulk of the RSN's sealift needs will be met by 4 Endurance-class LST (in capabilities more like LSDs or LPDs as discussed here). More info on the ships can be found on the following threads:
Frigates
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=63908
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=62138
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=61711
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=64639
LSTs
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=59350
Sorry for the missing photos in my postings, I've taken them off the server, but if you pop me a private message with your email I can sent them to you. The photos are all public domain so theres no issues involved. -
Originally posted by Viper52:
Small small correction: shouldn't it be six frigates? See e.g., http://www.mindef.gov.sg/weapons/frigate/
[yes it is the RSN who has acquired 4 stealthy frigates in the shape of the Formidable class.[/b]
Theory -
They are some crazy looking ships.
I wonder what the price tag is for one of those things.
Also, what capacity are they meant to fill, ASW, AAW or are they multi purpose vessels.
Thanks -
Originally posted by Theory:
Thats right, fat fingers on my part
Small small correction: shouldn't it be [b]six frigates? See e.g., http://www.mindef.gov.sg/weapons/frigate/
Theory[/b]
-
Sandman, they'll be having ASTER 15/30 (not sure which version yet) SAMs, Harpoon missiles and ASW helos. I would presume it'll be multipurpose.Originally posted by Sandman302:They are some crazy looking ships.
I wonder what the price tag is for one of those things.
Also, what capacity are they meant to fill, ASW, AAW or are they multi purpose vessels.
Thanks -
This is going quite far away from Oz M1A1, but I'm a curious fan of our new frigates:
I've being trying to figure out whether it's ASTER 15 or 30.Originally posted by Viper52:Sandman, they'll be having ASTER 15/30 (not sure which version yet)
1. The SYLVER VLS which contains the missiles comes in two flavors: A43 and A50; and only the latter takes both ASTER 15 and 30. The former only ASTER 15. (See: http://www.eurosam.com/blocks/sylver.htm)
2. According to the Japanese edition of JDW (see http://www.kojii.net/jdw/jdw040211.html), the Formidables are equipped with the A43. (You don't have to read much Japanese to see this on the page.)
So looks like it's going to be the ASTER 15 after all. (Which is such a pity, as the only difference space wise is that the A50 is 0.6m longer than that A43!)
But one thing's for sure. As Viper52 puts it:SAMs, Harpoon missiles and ASW helos...it'll be multipurpose.
Theory